[quote]AlisaV wrote:
What on earth is human nature? It’s a phrase you use to summarize a set of ideas. If it means anything, then you (Thunderbolt, Katzenjammer) are making some testable predictions about human behavior. Would you mind saying what those are?[/quote]
Oh, I see what you are doing here. 
Well stated.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
What on earth is human nature? It’s a phrase you use to summarize a set of ideas. If it means anything, then you (Thunderbolt, Katzenjammer) are making some testable predictions about human behavior. Would you mind saying what those are?[/quote]
My time is limited, but I’ll happily indulge one example - it is Human Nature to break promises when it is to your benefit and potential advantage to break them, i.e., Humans have a propensity to cheat each other.
By the way, anyone else find it funny that Rand opposed charity as a primary virtue? This hero of libertarian thought didn’t even think charity should be held in such a high regard. The funny part comes when you consider libertarian assurances that the free-market would fill the void for the needy (it wouldn’t) when the welfare state is torn down (it won’t be).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, anyone else find it funny that Rand opposed charity as a primary virtue?
[/quote]
All Rand ever claimed was that charity should be a choice made by the individual, because they want to, not because they were forced to do so.
They are several libertarians here who are not Randians, myself included.
[quote]
The funny part comes when you consider libertarian assurances that the free-market would fill the void for the needy (it wouldn’t)[/quote]
This was the case before the emergence of the modern nanny state. America did not have scores of people dying in the gutters and streets because there was no safety net.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
All Rand ever claimed was that charity should be a choice made by the individual, because they want to, not because they were forced to do so.[/quote]
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand, March 1964.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue.
[/quote]
All Rand ever claimed was that charity should be a choice made by the individual, because they want to, not because they were forced to do so.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
This was the case before the emergence of the modern nanny state. America did not have scores of people dying in the gutters and streets because there was no safety net.
[/quote]
That society no longer exists. It requires large and intact families (to share the brunt of family members in need), binding social/community institutions, and strong common moral codes. Today, not even the tea party want’s you near their SS.
And the last thing it needs is some philosophy that can’t even look at charity as a major virtue. Yeah, sell that to the public with a side order of “Well, private charity would handle it!”
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue.
[/quote]
All Rand ever claimed was that charity should be a choice made by the individual, because they want to, not because they were forced to do so.[/quote]
No, it wasn’t all that she claimed. She fights the very idea of charity as a major virtue.
Charity, for it to even come close to filling the role so many libertarians say it would, has to be seen as a major virtue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Charity, for it to even come close to filling the role so many libertarians say it would, has to be seen as a major virtue. [/quote]
But not all libertarians follow her philosophy. So what she thinks of charity is neither here nor there.
Do things for others if they deserve it and you can afford. If you don’t want to be charitable, then don’t. Pretty simple.
There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.
Something fascinating about this statement. She can’t even say it’s a moral good, or an example of human virtue at it’s best, to help someone in need. Even when they are worthy, she doesn’t say it’s a wonderful or praiseworthy thing. In fact, even when they are ‘worthy,’ the best she could manage here was “there is nothing wrong…” As if she was dismissing the right or wrong of wearing fall colors in the spring.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
If you don’t want to be charitable, then don’t. Pretty simple.
[/quote]
And this is exactly how not to build a charitable society. You don’t treat charity as if it were like choosing which side to part one’s hair to, left or right. “If you want to part it to the right, then do. If not, then don’t.” When libertarians show such moral indifference to their own welfare-state alternatives, well, it doesn’t inspire faith.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
This was the case before the emergence of the modern nanny state. America did not have scores of people dying in the gutters and streets because there was no safety net.
[/quote]
That society no longer exists. It requires large and intact families (to share the brunt of family members in need), binding social/community institutions, and strong common moral codes. Today, not even the tea party want’s you near their SS.
And the last thing it needs is some philosophy that can’t even look at charity as a major virtue. Yeah, sell that to the public with a side order of “Well, private charity would handle it!”[/quote]
I’m glad you mentioned this because I wanted to respond to an earlier (and similar) post of yours.
First, quit using Rand’s word as the be all end all of libertarian thought. There are plenty of libertarians who see charity as a good thing, and a more appropriate alternative to a nanny state. So it doesn’t really matter what she says.
As to a previous point you made in this thread (and other threads for that matter)…
Instead of blaming libertarians or atheists or whatever for the decline of the family unit and any of the other stuff you tend to complain about, blame your government. You currently have a government that gives incentives to an individual for being a shitless lay about, having kids out of wedlock, being immoral, etc. Take away the incentive, make them responsible for their own actions, then you will see society improve.
Because otherwise, your only other option is for the government to enforce and regulate morality, even more than it already does. I can’t imagine why any sane person would want that. It’s a recipe for disaster.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When libertarians show such moral indifference to their own welfare-state alternatives, well, it doesn’t inspire faith.[/quote]
Maybe some people can’t afford to be charitable?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Instead of blaming libertarians or atheists or whatever for the decline of the family unit and any of the other stuff you tend to complain about, blame your government. You currently have a government that gives incentives to an individual for being a shitless lay about, having kids out of wedlock, being immoral, etc. Take away the incentive, make them responsible for their own actions, then you will see society improve.
Because otherwise, your only other option is for the government to enforce and regulate morality, even more than it already does. I can’t imagine why any sane person would want that. It’s a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
I blame government, social liberals (including libertarians), and popular media. And guys, you can’t take away the incentive. The society which would let you–and in order to give their consent would need to be capable of MUCH self governance and discipline, and be able to rely on the permanenance of local association–doesn’t exist.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Well said. It’s interesting to me that libertarians and progressives/socialists both seem to share this belief in the perfectability of human nature.
[/quote]
It’s far more interesting to me that conservatives think they have human nature fully figured out. Not even mentioning the fact that no serious libertarian believes in this perfectability BS.
Btw, when are you going to respond to my posts that I made to you weeks ago? I thought we were going to have a good discussion in that other thread, but then you up and left.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When libertarians show such moral indifference to their own welfare-state alternatives, well, it doesn’t inspire faith.[/quote]
Maybe some people can’t afford to be charitable?
[/quote]
Dustin, is this really what the libertarian response to the public would be?
“You libertarians say private charity would step up to fill the void left by a redacted welfare-state. However, when reading and listening to libertarian musings, you folks don’t really seem to care much for the idea of society holding charity up as major virtue. Honestly, it comes off as if your claims about what private charity can accomplish are nothing more than political cover. That, in fact, you’re indifferent to what private charity could actually accomplish, if not outright hostile to it cultivation within the culture.”
“Ahem, well, what if one can’t afford to be charitable?”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Instead of blaming libertarians or atheists or whatever for the decline of the family unit and any of the other stuff you tend to complain about, blame your government. You currently have a government that gives incentives to an individual for being a shitless lay about, having kids out of wedlock, being immoral, etc. Take away the incentive, make them responsible for their own actions, then you will see society improve.
Because otherwise, your only other option is for the government to enforce and regulate morality, even more than it already does. I can’t imagine why any sane person would want that. It’s a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
I blame government, social liberals (including libertarians), and popular media. And guys, you can’t take away the incentive. The society which would let you–and in order to give their consent would need to be capable of much self governance and discipline–doesn’t exist. [/quote]
Then what is your alternative? More government to impose morality?
That is the only other option.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
If you don’t want to be charitable, then don’t. Pretty simple.
[/quote]
And this is exactly how not to build a charitable society. You don’t treat charity as if it were like choosing which side to part one’s hair to, left or right. “If you want to part it to the right, then do. If not, then don’t.” When libertarians show such moral indifference to their own welfare-state alternatives, well, it doesn’t inspire faith.[/quote]
Strangely enough, I actually agree with this. It is one of the remnants of the dreadful days of Randianism that libertarians show indifference to the poor and helpless. Libertarianism will never go anywhere if it is viewed (falsely) as a selfish, uncharitable doctrine.
Ms. Rand again, FTW!! â??“Moral cowardice is the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. It is the common symptom of all intellectual appeasers. The image of the brute is the symbol of an appeaserâ??s belief in the supremacy of evil, which means–not in conscious terms, but in terms of his quaking, cringing, blinding pan…ic–that when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power…”
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Instead of blaming libertarians or atheists or whatever for the decline of the family unit and any of the other stuff you tend to complain about, blame your government. You currently have a government that gives incentives to an individual for being a shitless lay about, having kids out of wedlock, being immoral, etc. Take away the incentive, make them responsible for their own actions, then you will see society improve.
Because otherwise, your only other option is for the government to enforce and regulate morality, even more than it already does. I can’t imagine why any sane person would want that. It’s a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
I blame government, social liberals (including libertarians), and popular media. And guys, you can’t take away the incentive. The society which would let you–and in order to give their consent would need to be capable of much self governance and discipline–doesn’t exist. [/quote]
Then what is your alternative? More government to impose morality?
That is the only other option.[/quote]
I’ll try to respond tonight. About to head out for a few hours. Hold the fort down. For now, how about substituting as a Trad-Con type for me? The argument must go on in my absence, and you can play my part! Later.